I’m totally bemused reading some of the reviews of the Nikon D4 that suggest the camera is “not worth it” or “not a worthy upgrade”. Anyone that has ever had to pay the rent with their photography knows the value of top notch equipment. The D4 shoots nearly a 50MB (8 bit) file and that is Getty Images size requirement. (OK, the D4 shoots a 46.2MB file specifically, but that’s mincing a few pixels.) That is amply perfect for a 2-page spread.

The D3s did not have this coverage without a fair amount of resampled (interpolated) pixels – 4,110,848 new interpolated pixels to be exact. If all a photographer needs is a 12MB file then it is universally acceptable that a D3s is suitable. But for anyone that needs to cover a 2-page spread (standard for a professional advertising or editorial photographer)and/or shoots for Getty Images, having a camera with the high ISO quality of the D3s, with the un-interpolated size of a 2-page spread, and meeting that 50MB Getty threshold (albeit with a bare, less than 10%, bit of interpolation) is the bees knees.

Like this:

1 response so far ↓

I’m with you – I make a living with my Nikon gear and not only is the image size from the D4 perfect for 99% of my sales, the focus system is vastly superior to the D3s for action sports. For the trickiest subjects, I’m getting twice as many in focus images as I did with the D3s. The 3d focus tracking is scary good.

I’m trying to look at all the negative press as a good thing – less of my competitors are going to buy one!